Site
Administrator
|
I am probably not a representative of how most people feel, but I will offer my opinion.
When a nation of people (not a country, but people with the same ethnic and cultural heritage, which may include a common religion) living in one area, being the overwhelming majority of that area, wants to be separate, wants to form their own country, they should be allowed to do so. If they do not have those commonalities, their position is much more difficult to justify.
Yugoslavia was formed after WWI; prior to that, there was no Yugoslav nation, country, or identity. The very name means "Land of the Southern Slavs." Souhern Slavs have several different religions, languages, cultures, and cultural identities. There was no single homogeneous group. Slovenians are much more European than Macedonians, and always have been. Croatians are Roman Catholic, while Serbians and Macedonians are Orthodox Christians. Bosniaks are mostly Muslims. The country was a construct of the West to "easily" solve the problem of the dissolution of the Ottoman rule and the Austria-Hungary break-up. It never worked as any type of union until Tito unified all the different groups, mainly by giving the weaker groups things that they couldn't have by themselves and convincing the stronger ones that they really weren't strong enough to withstand either US or Soviet imperialism on their own. He held the country together for over 30 years. When he died in 1980, the break-up was sure to follow. (One must remember that the different ethnic groups in Yogoslavia lived in their own republic, with the different republics belonging to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Thus, each had its own separate cultural identity preserved.)
India/Pakistan is a different situation, with regard to their formation. There was an Indian country, nation, and cultural identity prior to the break from England. The Muslims, however, felt that they would come under Hindu rule, and saw independence from England as their chance to have their own country. But there were several problems that had to be dealt with. Mass migration was the only solution to consolidate Muslims in the newly-formed Pakistan, with, of course, the Hindi population wanting not to be in that Pakistan. Even with that done, Pakistan was a divided nation, with the Bengali area eventually falling under the thumb of the Western, more powerful part of Pakistan. That break-up, too, should have been seen years in advance. All this does not mean that I either approve or disapprove of India's breaking up into India and Pakistan; it is just an observation of why the break-up occurred.
The Rom are an example of a disintegrated nation. They are too wide-spread to have any real national identity. Irish Rom are different than the Rom in Africa, Sweden, or Romania. The common culture that they once had is, for the most part, gone. The Jews, on the other hand, kept their cultural identity for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Further, Israel has apparently easily absorbed black Jews from southern Africa, who separated from the main body of Judiaisn more than two thousand years ago.
I can't speak to any states in India or Pakistan having a separate identity from the other states; I simply don't know enough. However, in the US, the mobility of the populace works against forming any real nation within the country. Even Hawaii, which was, at one time, a separate nation (and made a very poor decision about allowing immigrants) is no longer a unified ethnic group. The "identity" of the other states, with the possible exception of Alaska, is more of an affectation than a reality. Newcomers to a state simply make a conscious effort to conform to some idealized notion of how citizens of a state should act.
|
